@newtboy,

EDIT: drafted this and sent while you were writing previous reply, so maybe some of this is addressed?

Alright, I've gone one step further and read through the shutdownld50 tumblr 'evidence' seeing as they of all places probably gather the most condemning evidence they could.

The evidence amounts to putting on 1 event/exhibit that included far right folks, and included "Brett Stevens", whom I'm not familiar with but the quote from him on Breivik certainly sounds bad. In addition to putting on this exhibit, the even worse accusation is that they didn't really advertise it much publicly. Now, call me skeptical, but I have to believe that if they HAD advertised it heavily that ALSO would have compounded their guilt.

To me it still looks like guilt be association. The gallery had the audacity to host speakers that people disliked, so ergo-nazi!

Please though, if there is more or better evidence then please do let me know, or point me to what I'm missing. Is the Stevens guy so vehemently pro-nazi and and pro-violence that the association really should be enough? I'm inclined to believe no else they'd have better and more extensive quotes to use against him.

Again, I'm coming from a place of not knowing any of these people's backgrounds or history, but if we are supposed to believe them to be villians of such a high degree, I want a stronger case than those people say so and if you spent a few weeks of research on it you'd agree, trust us.

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

Sorry @Buttle it seems you fell for some far right bullshit.
This video is apparently three years old.
It also hides the truth of what's happening, this is not some man on the street, he's a public figurehead of white supremacist organisations in the UK, standing in front of what amounts to their headquarters.


From Reddit-
u/kanyeguisada did the work on this three years ago - here's there very level headed account of this.

"So looking into this...
The place being protested was the LD50 gallery in Hackney, London. They and owner Lucia Diego describe themselves as "neo-reactionary" but they are in fact supporting literal fascists and white supremacists and were trying to become the organizing spot in London for such groups to give them legitimacy and attempt to convert white progressives to their cause through the art world:

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/03/video-protesters-gather-outside-dalston-art-gallery-over-controversial-exhibition/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/politics/ld50-gallery-anti-fascist-protesters-march-through-dalston-1-4907083

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2017/02/25/ld50-gallery-protest-video-anti-fascists-clash-lone-counter-protester/

https://shutdownld50.tumblr.com/

The "free speech protestor" in this video is Daniel/DC Miller, who not only gave his name to the media, but is a public figure apparently widely known in Hackney for his support of LD50 and who holds (and tries to hold) public lectures on literal white-supremacist fascists:

https://www.facebook.com/events/100614430464838/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/it-ok-to-punch-nazi-art-gallery

http://thebaffler.com/latest/ld50-nolan

Now I'm all for free speech in the US. I think even white supremacists like the KKK have the right to speak their disgusting speech and hold rallies and people thinking otherwise should ask themselves what happens when speech they support suddenly might become considered hate speech. For instance many people on the left who support BDS/sanctions on Israel are often accused of "hate speech" simply for calling Israel an apartheid state. Free speech isn't just something the right cares about.

However, other people have the right to free speech too, and can yell right back at you and of course https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png. The guy in this video wasn't just some guy off the street supporting free speech rights but was actually a supporter of literal far-right white-supremacist fascism and was known to the community before this happened, so maybe hold off on the outrage about how mean the protestors were to him until you get the whole picture."

*fakenews

It's largely a practical matter. Getting a gun into an building that doesn't allow guns is easy, if the surrounding country has it legal. It's quite a bit harder to get it from country to country. In countries where it is generally more difficult to get a gun, the crazy fruit cakes won't get one. A full on psycho can still obtainit ,like Breivik, but john q bullybutt will have issues shooting up his school.

Guns are not good. In the same way that we shouldn't be swinging swords around unless Ina controlled environment. I love that Americans are the only god damned people who honestly and vehemently defend guns when it's so painfully obvious that they're terrible. Same thing with pick up trucks, but that's a different rant.

Further data points: Anders Breivik was unable to purchase weapons on the black market, and utilised legally obtainable weapons instead. If he was unable to obtain them legally, he might not have been able to obtain them at all.

Hungerford, 1987 (legally owned weapons)
Monkseaton, 1989 (legally owned gun stolen by family member)
Dunblane, 96 (legally owned)
Further tightening of gun control esp of handguns
Cumbria, 2010 (legally owned weapons)

I thought this was a nice gesture from the Norwegian Police. I'd like to note, though, that this video was posted by a conspiracy theorist blog called Gates of Vienna who were one of the inspirations behind Breiviks "manifesto".

>> ^entr0py:

Here's another response by Sam Harris. This time on Chris Hedges equating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik


Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges


THIS! Thank you for reminding me of this, Harris expresses what I think of Hedges much better than I can.

Here's another response by Sam Harris. This time on Chris Hedges equating Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik



Dear Angry Lunatic: A Response to Chris Hedges

Not mentioned because the training wasn't for anything specific like a camp of children on an island, but just a general "mobile terrorist attack in which one or more perpetrators' only goal is to shoot as many people as possible and then shoot the police when they arrive" (says Google translate). The only part of that that's similar is the first part of the goal [edited]. The rest of it doesn't match. He surrendered to the police immediately when they arrived, rendering the whole exercise useless.>> ^marbles:

Not mentioned:
"Only hours before Anders Breivik Behring began to shoot children at Utøya, police emergency squad finished an exercise where they practiced an almost identical situation." http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Trente-p-Utya-scena
rio-22-juli-6285004.html (http://translate.google.com/)
Just like 9/11 and London 7/7, the government was conducting terror drills the very same day with nearly identical scenarios as the real attacks. Coincidence over and over again, right?

Not mentioned:

"Only hours before Anders Breivik Behring began to shoot children at Utøya, police emergency squad finished an exercise where they practiced an almost identical situation." http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Trente-p-Utya-scenario-22-juli-6285004.html (http://translate.google.com/)

Just like 9/11 and London 7/7, the government was conducting terror drills the very same day with nearly identical scenarios as the real attacks. Coincidence over and over again, right?

@heropsycho
Re:war on terror as religious crusade
dismiss, ignore, ignore, deny, dismiss. You're not going to dismiss/deny the other two examples?

Re:Obama and Christianity
Obama claims to be Christian, that's the standard you use for Breivik.

Re:Obama is not intentionally trying to kill civilians
False. It's accepted collateral damage. Raining down hellfire missiles leveling apartment buildings, assassinating entire wedding parties, etc. is terrorism.

Re:Terror bombings in Tripoli
Sorry, everything we are doing in Libya violates U.S. and international law. It's irrelevant what the mission is. Bombing civilian areas and doing fly-overs for hours is done for one purpose: to incite fear into the civilian population i.e. terrorism

Re:"It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large."
It's pretty silly you believe that garbage.

Re:Extreme progressives
So you admit that "progressive" is just another hollow label? What's the difference between regular progressives and "extreme progressives" say...5 years ago? There wasn't. But now it's progressive to illegally bomb other countries.

Thanks for making my point.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

The man wasn't Christian..

He had a sense of Christiandom, just as a lot of people talk of the "Muslim/Arab world"... and found historical figures with whom he sympathized in order to justify his fight.

Breivik killed no-one for "God", his acts were political assassination.

Oh, by the way this fellow is completely disingenuous as the NYT (and just about every news source) also assumed it was a Muslim act when the news hit. You'd figure he'd put in a bit more research instead of before blowing hot air.

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?



There's plenty of people who believe that it is. There are also plenty of people that support Israel because of a warped Christian ideology. Come on this isn't new.